mp3 file format recorded at 320 kbps

[Yeto]

If I download mp3s at 320 kbps will they sound as good as CDs bought from a store?

Thanks,
Yeto

[KMO]

They'll be closer to it than 256 kbps. It's subjective, really. Depends how critical a listener you are, and what environment and kit you'll be listening on.

Personally, I'd never pay money for anything worse than CD. Particularly if it was copy protected. It might be fine on an iPod, but not so hot if I actually wanted to listen to it on all this expensive AV kit in the living room...

[VicAjax]

depends on the source and system. i use 256 VBR for my ipod, and it sounds great to me. i could probably use a lower compression floor and not notice, but 256 VBR satisfies my conscience.

if i were ripping for my home system, i'd stick to lossless compression, FLAC or ALAC. while i can hear a difference between 320kbps and CD on my home system (on better recordings), i can't distinguish at all between ALAC and CD.

[schticker]

Originally Posted by KMO

They'll be closer to it than 256 kbps. It's subjective, really. Depends how critical a listener you are, and what environment and kit you'll be listening on.

Personally, I'd never pay money for anything worse than CD. Particularly if it was copy protected. It might be fine on an iPod, but not so hot if I actually wanted to listen to it on all this expensive AV kit in the living room...

More file compression ignorace...

[tcable]

You can hear any bitrate of MP3 on some songs- Creed Who's Got My Back is painful as an MP3 even at 320. It's the actual sounds that are used, they just don't compress well at all.

99% of music still sounds pretty good as high rate MP3's.

I was listening to CD's in my HT last week, what a difference. 99% of my listening has become either portable music (iRiver H32 with Shure e3c's) or streaming audio on crappy Labtec speakers. I have a $2500 speaker setup in the HT (and it sounds it). I just miss teh presence of good speakers. Music you can FEEL even at low volume levels.

[Figgie]

I use FLAC and nothing else.

I have not heard any MP3 that comes close. If i were to have to choose a particular MP3 it would have to be LAME MP3 based mp3 files. All the other sound like crap and the artifacts are still there.

[crackyflipside]

Originally Posted by Figgie

I use FLAC and nothing else.

I have not heard any MP3 that comes close. If i were to have to choose a particular MP3 it would have to be LAME MP3 based mp3 files. All the other sound like crap and the artifacts are still there.

Once you go FLAC you never go back.

Lossless audio files are still pretty large but all the high frequency info is still all there, I can't stand the sound of mp3s played through good speakers.

For little headphones on my portable mp3 player, sure mp3 quality is good enough.

[dknightd]

I've yet to be able to hear the difference between 320 kbps mp3 and a CD. If you do a blind test I think you'll find that most people cannot.

[Yeto]

Originally Posted by Figgie

I use FLAC and nothing else.

I have not heard any MP3 that comes close. If i were to have to choose a particular MP3 it would have to be LAME MP3 based mp3 files. All the other sound like crap and the artifacts are still there.

Yes, I have been downloading LAME MP3 files at 320kbps. If I start to use FLAC, what would I use to play the files? Will any DVD player read them?

Thanks,
Yeto

[jmik26]

It really depends on what your listening to when playing that MP3.

Stock Car Stereo - Probably won't notice a difference.
Computer Speakers - Probably won't notice a difference.
Headphones - Probably won't notice a difference.
Boom Box - Probably won't notice a difference.
Low End Home Audio - Probably won't notice a difference.
High End Audio - You WILL notice the difference.

[dknightd]

You might be right, or you might have better hearing than I do. I thought it would be easier to tell on headphones, so I tried them first. Using a Benchmark DAC1 to feed Senn HD650 or AKG 701. I couldn't tell reliably using ABX comparing software. Then I tried my stereo (same Benchmark DAC1 feeding Adcom 5500 amp through b&w 703 speakers) I still could not tell. When I was controlling what was being played I thought I could tell the difference, when I asked somebody else to radomly select which to play suddenly I couldn't the difference. I think I was fooling myself. I still don't understand how I can throw away 2/3 of the bits and have it sound the same (especially since CD sampling rate is not that great to begin with). I was surprised, I thought I could hear the difference, but in a blind test found I could not.

Maybe my stereo is not good enough. But I'd consider it a good mid-fi system. I'm not likely to upgrade it soon, and my ears are not getting any younger . . . (I do rip some stuff lossless just on principle, but most of my CD's I just use 320 mp3 since it takes less space)

edit: maybe I should buy Creed Who's Got My Back to see if I can tell on that. But I'd hate to have to rerip everything (which is a good arguement for using lossless from the start if at all possible). Initially I tried 10 tracks to compare. Every once in awhile I try again. I've probably tried to do this carefully on about 30-40 tracks. But I've got more than 75000 tracks in my library, maybe there is one where I could tell the difference (but then I'd have to buy many TB of disk to store the collection and its backups. . .)

[Yeto]

How do I play the FLAC files? Will any standard DVD player play them or will I have to have special software and play them from my computer?

Sorry for the newbie questions.

Thanks,
Yeto

[dknightd]

Burn the flac to audio CD and they will be playable on any CD player.

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by dknightd

You might be right, or you might have better hearing than I do. I thought it would be easier to tell on headphones, so I tried them first. Using a Benchmark DAC1 to feed Senn HD650 or AKG 701. I couldn't tell reliably using ABX comparing software. Then I tried my stereo (same Benchmark DAC1 feeding Adcom 5500 amp through b&w 703 speakers) I still could not tell. When I was controlling what was being played I thought I could tell the difference, when I asked somebody else to radomly select which to play suddenly I couldn't the difference. I think I was fooling myself. I still don't understand how I can throw away 2/3 of the bits and have it sound the same (especially since CD sampling rate is not that great to begin with). I was surprised, I thought I could hear the difference, but in a blind test found I could not.

Maybe my stereo is not good enough. But I'd consider it a good mid-fi system. I'm not likely to upgrade it soon, and my ears are not getting any younger . . . (I do rip some stuff lossless just on principle, but most of my CD's I just use 320 mp3 since it takes less space)

edit: maybe I should buy Creed Who's Got My Back to see if I can tell on that. But I'd hate to have to rerip everything (which is a good arguement for using lossless from the start if at all possible). Initially I tried 10 tracks to compare. Every once in awhile I try again. I've probably tried to do this carefully on about 30-40 tracks. But I've got more than 75000 tracks in my library, maybe there is one where I could tell the difference (but then I'd have to buy many TB of disk to store the collection and its backups. . .)

Yup, it's *easy* to tell the difference when you know what is playing. I thought it was pretty easy too until I tried the ABX thing.

I will concede that some people have better hearing and listening and that the system makes a difference too. That said, lots of people overestimate and overstate their abilities...

Anyone that can positively and repeatedly ID 320 vs the original is pretty damn good, or they used a really crappy encoder.

[biggestmuff]

Originally Posted by schticker

More file compression ignorace...

Why don't you spend some time educating instead of berating? That could be more beneficial, don't you think?

Also, if you're going to talk down to someone, check your spelling, dingus.

[schticker]

Originally Posted by biggestmuff

Why don't you spend some time educating instead of berating? That could be more beneficial, don't you think?

Also, if you're going to talk down to someone, check your spelling, dingus.

1. I wasn't directing that at anyone it particular, but it's interesting that your insecurities surface. Abused on the playground?

2. Blame the keyboard, not the fingers

[Brahmzy]

FLAC is the ONLY thing I can use - I can here a HUGE difference between CD and 320 MP3. Sounds like crap. Some tracks worse than others, but is audibly worse on EVERYTHING.

[WallyWest]

If you rip with EAC, and encode with LAME it's hard to hear any difference between MP3 and CD. On some songs I can notice it, but a good MP3 is pretty darn close to CD quality.

I also archive in FLAC, just to have a backup of the CD's.

[dknightd]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

FLAC is the ONLY thing I can use - I can here a HUGE difference between CD and 320 MP3. Sounds like crap. Some tracks worse than others, but is audibly worse on EVERYTHING.

Have you tried a blind comparison? It opened up my eyes
If you can get 8 right out of 10 tries on 320 kbps mp3 v.s. FLAC I would be very impressed. Try it. If you get lucky on the first song, see if you can get better than 8 out of 10 on a few more songs. Then come back and tell us how you did, what equipment you used, and what the differences you heard were.

[djseto]

Looks like the debate I have is already happening here. I find myself in the same dilemma. I have Rotel System w/ B&W 800 series speakers. I picked up a 250GB HD today to create an music server. My problem now is what to encode my music in. I travel a lot for work, so if I go lossless, its ALAC (for my iPod), BUT for storage space and compatibility, I feel like 320 MP3 is the way to go. I did a test today and I *thought* I heard the difference, but then again, I was doing the A/B switching, so maybe its a placebo effect. I used to DJ's so a lot of my music is on broadcast quality CD's provided by professional music services. I am leaning towards 320 mp3 as a compromise since I have the original CD's, but with the level system I have at home, I feel like anything less than FLAC is an injustice.

By the way, where does one find a program to rip with EAC and encode with LAME? I like the simple process of letting iTunes do the encoding since it also looks up and verifies album, artist, etc info, but if I go mp3, I want the best possible encoder.

**UPDATE** -- Can someone point me to a good Encoding with EAC/LAME Tutorial? I found a bunch on google, but they have dates going back to 2004 and I am afraid they may be outdated. I certainly don't want to encode with old guides if there is better out there now...

[MichaelJHuman]

I personally can't hear the difference between 128 AAC and CD when played through my macbook headphone jack into Grado SR60 cans.

I realize that's the an ideal setup. But it leads me to believe a lot of people would be happy with between 160-102kb/s MP3's and 128kb/s and up AAC files.

You should certainly try it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

[Greg_R]

If I download mp3s at 320 kbps will they sound as good as CDs bought from a store?

Unfortunately everyone has missed the major issue here... the quality of the RIP (before you even think about encoding). Internet-bought mp3s are not guaranteed to have a perfect rip from the original CD. Use EAC to rip your discs to ensure a clean rip and then use your encoder of choice. I'm in the process of removing all my 192 VBR files and am replacing them with FLAC and 128 VBR versions (i.e. a high quality option and a low quality option for portable and car use). FLAC is nice in that it will support added text and images (lyrics, album covers, etc.).

[MichaelJHuman]

Perhaps. He gave us no clue about the source of the MP3's besides mentioning downloading them.

They could have been ripped using any number of programs.

I have heard of a site where you pay by the bandwidth for downloading music. If that's his concern than he should download the same song at a few different rates. That could save money, or at very least time.

[Brahmzy]

It's odd to me that more folks can't hear the difference. I wanted so very badly to be able to use 320 and almost convinced my self that the difference wasn't that big. But, that's the point - there IS a difference and one I can hear everytime - whether it's me ripping or downloaded 320's (especially downloaded 320's)
I have certain "test" CD's I use as a baseline that are extremely clear and pristine where I can tell the difference the most. The high-hat and crash and ride cymbals are a dead giveaway that "it's not CD quality."
FLAC is there only compression where I cannot tell an audible difference. And I tried too - cause FLAC is still technically removing information, but I cannot tell a difference. OGG Quality 10 compression is VERY close to FLAC - much better than MP3 320.

Now would I be able to tell you that I'm listening to a 320MP3 of something random vs. a CD? It depends...sometimes no, other times, definitely. But I can guarantee you if I heard them side-by side I could tell you everytime (as long as there is some 8KHz-16KHz information in them.)

Maybe it has to do with the Klipsch horns? Although I can tell perfectly on my Klipsch ProMedia 5.1 PC speakers as well.

Why would anyone intentionally listen to source material that is of less quality than they can have? Excluding portable devices of course.

[dknightd]

Brahmzy,
Please tell us what CD's you use. Maybe then I can hear a difference.

I think part of it may be due to age. I'm almost 50, and my ears have been used
and occasionally abused. I pretty much can't hear above 14khz anymore.
As I get older my hearing continues to degrade, but my listening continues
to get better. Maybe you have to have both good hearing and good listening
to be able to tell the difference. And the right sample, and the right equipment.

BTW, FLAC removes no information. All it does is compress the file size (kind of like zip).

[MichaelJHuman]

I belive FLAC is 100% lossless and removes no information. How does it make it smaller? Using standard compression techniques but those that are designed specifically for audio.

Take a simple example of a file that contains long strings of 0's and 1's. Rather than represent each 0 or 1, we have a count followed by whether its a string of 0's or 1's.

e.g.
Original data: 000000001111111
Compresssed: 1000010001 (counts are 4 bits followed by whether the string is 0's or 1's)

[SpectralD]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

The high-hat and crash and ride cymbals are a dead giveaway that "it's not CD quality."

Exactly -- these are good cues...

I just got a pair of BG Radia 420's. These are a ribbon hybrid; they have incredible detail. I've been going back and re-ripping CDs into lossless; I'll probably do some ABX with 320kb AAC vs. lossless sometime soon. I know that I can distinguish 160kb AAC from lossless; I never tried 320kb.